D&D General Should players be aware of their own high and low rolls?

[GMforPowergamers]

I don't think @iserith ever responded to this. I was going to leave it to them, because I learned my solution from them. Which is to allow pvp, but the outcome of every adversarial reaction is narrated, without a roll, not by the DM but by the target.

So when you stab Bob in the eye, the DM turns to Bob and says, "What happens?" Bob might say, "The dagger glances off my helmet. I cast command and tell him to grovel." So the DM turns to you and says, "What happens?" And you say, "I know Bob's tricks so the spell doesn't work on me; no saving throw needed."

Etc.

I.e., the "soft veto".

so a house ruled veto but still a veto (not that I think it's bad)

 

[iserith]

If you've ever had a player use fire bolt on a troll and objected to it on the grounds of metagaming, you might very well have had a disagreement with a player about what the PC knows about trolls.

You asked how there can be a disagreement about what falls under PC knowledge. I answered. If you really think there's no room for disagreement, only room for being right and wrong, well, I don't have more to add to the conversation.

It could well be just a matter of power dynamics. I know that if I disagree with the DM under such an agreement, I could be judged as acting in bad faith and uninvited from future games. So in that scenario, I'm better off deferring to the DM's personal feelings on whether something is "metagaming" or not, even when I strongly disagree with them, if my goal is to keep playing. (This could be true even if I also believe that "metagaming" is cheating.) It doesn't remove the possibility of or any actual disagreements that may arise. It just means the DM always wins in those situations since they have all the power, so you may as well not fight it. That's effectively a veto on action declarations since there are certain action declarations that are forbidden which have to be determined as they may arise and two people acting in good faith could easily disagree.

The above will also serve as my response to your last post as well @Maxperson, and will be my last word on this tangent. You may not believe that it's a veto, but it clearly is by any measure in my view, and setting up that condition in the first place lends itself to more possible disagreement than a game without this table rule. Given this downside, and no real upside as I see it, I would never implement it.

 

[Maxperson]

If you've ever had a player use fire bolt on a troll and objected to it on the grounds of metagaming, you might very well have had a disagreement with a player about what the PC knows about trolls.

I've had players use firebolt on trolls when their PC knew about the vulnerability, yes. I've also had players whose PC did not know about trolls and had no reason to use firebolt through any of the methods I've mentioned not use firebolt against trolls.

 

[Bill Zebub]

so a house ruled veto but still a veto (not that I think it's bad)

Oh, sure, it's both a house rule and a veto. I was just pointing out that it's exactly the sort of 'soft veto' @Lanefan was describing up thread. The key thing is that you're not telling a player, "No you may not do that."

So, no, @iserith's 'ban' on pvp is nothing at all like telling a player that their character wouldn't use fire on trolls.

 

[Maxperson]

It could well be just a matter of power dynamics.

It has nothing to do with power, since I have no interesting them knowing or not knowing. My only interest is in keeping things in character.

I know that if I disagree with the DM under such an agreement, I could be judged as acting in bad faith and uninvited from future games.

I've never said that. I have had player disagree with me and come talk to me after the game. We explain our positions and if the player is right, I will alter whatever it was if possible, or change for the future. If he's not, then it won't change. Disagreement, though, isn't going to get anyone kicked out of the game.

Cheating will, though. Just don't bring in OOC knowledge, which is super simple to do, and you'll be fine.

The above will also serve as my response to your last post as well @Maxperson, and will be my last word on this tangent. You may not believe that it's not a veto, but it clearly is by any measure in my view, and setting up that condition in the first place lends itself to more possible disagreement than a game without this table rule. Given this downside, and no real upside as I see it, I would never implement it.

In my game I'm more likely to give the player info on the monster due to backgrounds, skills, etc. than my players are to try and find out, and they aren't shy on that front. I even flat out give yeses a lot of the time when they don't expect it. I consider a lot of aspects of the world, backgrounds and how those interplay with one another and if I can reasonably say yes or ask for a roll, I do so. Maybe that's why I don't have disagreements on this issue.

 

[GMforPowergamers]

I've had players use firebolt on trolls when their PC knew about the vulnerability, yes. I've also had players whose PC did not know about trolls and had no reason to use firebolt through any of the methods I've mentioned not use firebolt against trolls.

firebolt isn't really metagaming though... you have 2-4 cantrips depending on class and level (I say knowing my warlock got11 by the end) and odds of them all being damage causing are slim and there is only 2 that do better then FB (EB with +cha invo, and TtD with target already down hp) so IF YOU HAVE firebolt odds are you spam it all the time

 

[iserith]

so a house ruled veto but still a veto (not that I think it's bad)

No, it's not because there's an important distinction between the DM narrating the result of what the player has described and telling them that certain things they want to try are not allowed to even be introduced (a veto on action declarations, perhaps due to "metagaming" concerns). The DM is tasked with narrating the result of the adventurers actions which may or may not involve mechanics at the DM's discretion. In this PVP house rule, the DM is delegating their role of narrating the result of the adventurers' actions to the target of the PVP attempt who may decide what to narrate instead of the DM. Just like the DM, the player may decide whether the attempt succeeds or fails. This ensures that PVP is consensual. They can roleplay their characters as they see fit under this arrangement and resolve it accordingly.

 

[GMforPowergamers]

Oh, sure, it's both a house rule and a veto.

yup like I said.

I was just pointing out that it's exactly the sort of 'soft veto' @Lanefan was describing up thread.

I don't know if it matters hard or soft but okay

The key thing is that you're not telling a player, "No you may not do that."

except that is exactly what it is in more steps... it's saying "You can't do that because I wont let you try)

So, no, @iserith's 'ban' on pvp is nothing at all like telling a player that their character wouldn't use fire on trolls.

it is just in extra steps to make him feel better.


I am not even against it... I just take the more direct approach of "No PVP unless mind controlled"

 

[iserith]

firebolt isn't really metagaming though... you have 2-4 cantrips depending on class and level (I say knowing my warlock got11 by the end) and odds of them all being damage causing are slim and there is only 2 that do better then FB (EB with +cha invo, and TtD with target already down hp) so IF YOU HAVE firebolt odds are you spam it all the time

Interesting, two people who agree that "metagaming" shouldn't be done are disagreeing on whether casting fire bolt on a troll is or is not "metagaming." Good thing they don't play at the same table! (I assume.)

 

[Maxperson]

firebolt isn't really metagaming though... you have 2-4 cantrips depending on class and level (I say knowing my warlock got11 by the end) and odds of them all being damage causing are slim and there is only 2 that do better then FB (EB with +cha invo, and TtD with target already down hp) so IF YOU HAVE firebolt odds are you spam it all the time

And I've said at LEAST five times in this thread that if firebolt is the go to spell, I don't have an issue with them going to it with a troll when they don't have knowledge of the weakness. That would fall under the "Consistent prior roleplay" that I keep mentioning.